Claremont Street
Institutional-style stock research in minutes, with every claim cited back to source.
Tagline
Cited stock research in minutes
Stop reading filings the hard way
Institutional research without the black box
A 167-point checklist with receipts
Category-defining: institutional-grade equity research for self-directed investors, not a stock-picking app.
The product is built around an auditable checklist, source-linked evidence, and a verdict without recommendations, which is closer to analyst workflow than consumer finance gamification.
Alternative-to: your first 3 hours of reading 10-Ks, transcripts, and scattered notes on every new stock idea.
The strongest promise in the page is time compression from hours to minutes, backed by a structured framework that replaces manual initial diligence.
Pain-killer: stop buying stocks from vibes; use a repeatable 167-point checklist with receipts.
The page repeatedly emphasizes evidence, consistency, and citations. That directly attacks the biggest credibility gap in retail investing tools: opaque scoring and unsupported conclusions.
Primary user
Self-directed retail investor who reads 10-Ks, compares multiple stocks, and wants institutional-style screening without building a model
ICP #1
Self-directed value investor managing a $100k-$1M personal portfolio
Pain
They spend hours jumping between filings, transcripts, and notes just to decide whether a stock is worth deeper work.
Why this solves
Claremont Street compresses the first-pass diligence process into a repeatable 167-check framework and gives them cited evidence plus a verdict in minutes.
ICP #2
Independent equity analyst at a small family office
Pain
They need a consistent screening process across many names but don’t have the time or staff to manually apply the same checklist every time.
Why this solves
The product standardizes analysis across 167 checks and 7 pillars, making it easier to compare companies side by side and audit the logic later.
ICP #3
Experienced retail investor who hates black-box stock picks from newsletters and apps
Pain
They don’t trust recommendation engines that say buy/sell without showing the work.
Why this solves
Claremont Street explicitly refuses to give advice, surfaces the evidence, and lets the user keep the decision, which matches their need for transparency and control.
Strengths
- +The value proposition is unusually concrete: 167 checks, 7 pillars, cited evidence, and a clear verdict.
- +The product demo is specific and credible because it shows a real-style research output for NVDA and names actual pillars and scores.
- +The positioning around "research tool, not investment advice" builds trust with a skeptical investor audience and reduces regulatory ambiguity.
Weaknesses
- −The homepage is overloaded with jargon and internal framework language before it explains the user outcome in plain English.
- −The brand voice is a little self-serious and academic; it risks sounding like a hedge fund memo rather than a product someone can immediately understand.
- −There is too much emphasis on "institutional-grade" and not enough on how a user actually uses it day to day: screening, comparing, and deciding faster.
- −The page buries practical proof like report length, workflow, export/share options, and how deeply the citations are surfaced in the actual UI.
- −The waitlist CTA is strong, but there is not enough differentiation against TIKR, Koyfin, or Seeking Alpha for a user who already uses one of them.
Fix these
- Rewrite the hero to lead with the user outcome, not the framework: 'Get a fully cited stock memo in minutes.'
- Add a direct side-by-side comparison against TIKR, Seeking Alpha, and Koyfin showing what Claremont Street does differently.
- Show more of the actual report interface: source citations, check statuses, and how verdicts are explained check-by-check.
- Create a use-case section for 'new idea screening,' 'earnings prep,' and 'portfolio review' so users can map the product to their workflow.
- Replace some of the institutional language with sharper, more concrete copy about speed, consistency, and auditable evidence.
Drop-in replacement copy
Headline
Cited stock research in minutes
Run any ticker through 167 checks and get an auditable memo
Research faster without losing the source trail
Enter a ticker and get a full first-pass memo built from filings, transcripts, and live market data. Every claim links back to the source so you can verify the thesis instead of trusting a score.
Compare companies with the same framework
Each report uses 7 pillars and 167 checks, so every company is judged on the same logic. That makes side-by-side comparison much easier than juggling notes, screenshots, and half-finished spreadsheets.
See where the memo is still unresolved
The live preview shows the analysis being assembled and how many checks are still open. It makes the process feel real, not magical, which is exactly what serious investors want.
Save and reuse research like an analyst
Download sample reports and use the journal to explore framework-driven writeups on specific stocks and investing concepts. It’s built for repeat usage, not one-off novelty.
FAQ
Is this investment advice?
No. It is a research tool. You get a cited memo, pillar grades, and a verdict to review yourself.
Who is this for?
Self-directed investors, value investors, and small-team analysts who want faster first-pass diligence without black-box recommendations.
How is this different from TIKR or Seeking Alpha?
Those tools are useful for data and content. Claremont Street is built around a repeatable 167-point analysis framework with source-linked evidence in every claim.
What sources does it use?
Public filings, earnings-call transcripts, and live market and macro data.
Can I trust the output?
You should not trust it blindly. The whole point is that you can audit the reasoning, check the sources, and decide for yourself.
I built Claremont Street. Drop in a ticker and get a cited stock memo in minutes. 167 checks. 7 pillars. Verdict with receipts. Not advice. Just a faster way to do real first-pass diligence.
Most stock apps give you a score. Claremont Street shows the math. Every claim in the memo is cited back to filings, transcripts, or market data. If you actually read stocks, this is for you.
I almost cut the framework down. Then I realized the whole point was consistency. 167 checks across 7 pillars forces the model to explain itself instead of hand-waving. That’s the product.
Not a stock picker. Not a newsletter. A research tool that compresses the first 3 hours of reading into a cited memo you can actually audit. Still refining the report UI, but the core workflow is there.
You open the 10-K. Then the transcript. Then your notes. Then Google for macro context. Two hours later you still don’t know if the name deserves deeper work. Claremont Street gives you the first-pass answer in minutes.
If a tool says buy/sell and won’t show the work, I ignore it. Claremont Street does the opposite: - 167-point framework - 7 pillar grades - source-linked evidence - auditable verdict You keep the decision.
Enter a ticker. See the unresolved checks count drop. Watch filings, transcripts, and data get pulled into a cited memo. The point isn't to replace judgment. It's to kill the first-pass grunt work.
One stock. 167 checks. 7 pillars. Business quality. Moat. Financial strength. Management. Valuation. Growth runway. Risks. The output is a verdict with evidence, not a random “strong buy” badge.
The nicest thing users say is: “This feels like real work.” That’s the goal. No dopamine tricks. No fake urgency. Just a repeatable way to compare stocks without trusting vibes.
Early testers keep using it the same way: - screen a new ticker - compare it to 2-3 names - save the memo - move on if it fails the checklist That workflow is the product.
Angle: user outcome
I built Claremont Street because reading a new stock idea was taking too long. The typical workflow is familiar: - 10-K - earnings transcript - macro context - scattered notes - maybe a spreadsheet That’s fine if you do it once a month. It breaks down if you’re comparing multiple names. So I built a tool that turns that first-pass diligence into a repeatable workflow. Enter a ticker. Get a 167-point analysis. See 7 pillar grades. Every claim is cited back to source. It’s not investment advice. It’s a research tool for people who want to keep the decision but stop wasting hours on manual prep. If you spend your own time researching stocks, I’d love to know what part of your workflow is still painfully manual.
Angle: trust and transparency
Most AI stock tools have the same problem: they give you an answer and hide the work. That’s backwards for investing. If I’m going to trust a research workflow, I need to see: - what was checked - what was inferred - what source each claim came from - where the thesis is weak Claremont Street was built around that idea. It produces an auditable memo instead of a black-box score. It breaks analysis into 7 pillars. It runs 167 checks. And it cites every claim back to source. The point is not to tell you what to buy. The point is to make due diligence faster, more consistent, and easier to review later. I think a lot of finance software overuses confidence and underdelivers on explanation. Curious if others feel the same.
Angle: workflow replacement
The best positioning for this product is not “AI stock picker.” That framing attracts the wrong expectation. The real use case is simpler: - new idea screening - earnings prep - portfolio review - side-by-side comparison In other words: replacing the first few hours of reading. Claremont Street gives you a cited stock memo built from public filings, earnings transcripts, and market data. It’s structured around 7 pillars and a 167-point framework so the output stays consistent across names. I’m less interested in making the product sound impressive and more interested in making it actually useful. If you already have a workflow for evaluating stocks, I’d be interested in what step you would most want automated first.
No visuals for this kit yet.
Tagline
Cited stock memos in minutes
Description
Run a ticker through a 167-point framework and get a fully cited stock memo, 7 pillar scores, and an auditable verdict. Built for self-directed investors who want speed without black-box recommendations.
Maker's first comment
I built Claremont Street because I was tired of switching between filings, transcripts, notes, and charts just to answer one question: is this worth deeper work? The product is intentionally not a stock picker. It’s a research tool. You enter a ticker and get a framework-driven memo with cited evidence, pillar grades, and a verdict you can audit yourself. What I kept hearing from early users was not “give me more AI” but “show me the work.” That’s why the product leans hard into citations, consistency, and transparency instead of confidence theater. I’d love feedback on two things in particular: whether the report structure feels genuinely useful for first-pass diligence, and whether the product page makes the workflow obvious fast enough for someone who already uses TIKR, Koyfin, or Seeking Alpha.
Pinned maker comment
I’d especially love feedback on the clarity of the live preview, the usefulness of the 7-pillar scorecard, and whether the report feels auditable enough for real investing workflows.
Meta
Still spending hours on one stock?
Hypothesis: self-directed investors will convert when they see a faster first-pass diligence workflow with citations. Enter a ticker. Get a 167-point memo built from filings, transcripts, and market data. No black box. No advice. Just evidence.
Google Search
AI stock research with citations
Hypothesis: searchers comparing stock research tools want auditable outputs, not generic screeners. Claremont Street turns a ticker into a cited research memo with 7 pillar grades and a verdict. Built for investors who read the work, not just the score.
Reddit Promoted
Tired of black-box stock tools?
Hypothesis: value investors and DIY analysts will engage with a tool that shows every claim source-linked. Claremont Street runs a 167-point framework on public filings and transcripts, then gives you a memo you can audit yourself.
Subreddits
r/SideProject
Show the live preview and explain how the 167-point framework replaces manual first-pass diligence
Rules: No spam, show the build, be transparent about being the maker, avoid hard-selling, respond in comments.
r/indiehackers
Share the story of building a finance tool that refuses black-box answers and focuses on citations
Rules: Must be about building, include specifics, no affiliate/referral links, engage with commenters.
r/microsaas
Explain the niche workflow automation angle: new idea screening for self-directed investors
Rules: Keep it product-focused, no vague hype, must fit the microsaas angle, no repeated self-promo.
r/EntrepreneurRideAlong
Document the launch and talk through what got built, what didn’t, and how users react to cited stock memos
Rules: Be honest, show numbers or screenshots if possible, avoid generic marketing, participate in replies.
r/stocks
Ask for feedback on whether a cited memo with pillar grades would actually fit a real research workflow
Rules: Must be educational, no pumping, no direct promotion first, keep the discussion about process and research quality.
Communities
Post the build story, then comment on other founders' posts daily for visibility and credibility.
X finance circles
Reply to people posting 10-K threads, valuation takes, and market notes with a useful cited example from the product.
Value investing Discords
Offer free report runs for active members and ask what checks they wish the framework included.
Private family office operator groups
Lead with workflow speed and consistency, not AI. Offer side-by-side reports on names they already follow.
Cold outreach template
Hey {firstName} — saw your post about {context}. I built a tool that turns a ticker into a fully cited research memo in minutes, and I think it might fit how you compare names. If you want, I can run one ticker you’re watching and send the report.
Product Hunt timing
Launch on Tuesday morning UTC after you have 3-5 polished sample reports and a live preview that loads fast. Early Product Hunt traffic rewards clarity more than polish, and finance products need instant proof to overcome skepticism.
Indie Hackers post ideas
- 01I built a cited stock research tool instead of a stock picker
- 02Why I turned a 10-K reading workflow into a 167-point product
- 03What self-directed investors actually want: speed, citations, and no advice
Competitor alternatives
Current tone of voice
Disciplined, skeptical, and anti-hype. The page literally says, "A research tool, not investment advice," and "You keep the decision," which signals control, restraint, and analyst-grade rigor rather than promotional stock-picking language.
Your kit is ready. Sign up free to unlock, takes 10 seconds.
7 more X posts · 2 LinkedIn · Product Hunt copy · ad hooks · 100-user playbook · landing critique